The Chairman explained that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panel (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No. 392.

The Chairman welcomed all Members, officers and members of the public to the meeting.

Local Plan Panel 11.06.2020

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Senior Planner introduced the report which set-out the results of the Strategic Transport Modelling Evidence work which had been undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review, jointly undertaken with the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways team.  The Senior Planner advised that the modelling was highway focused and intended to give a broad overview of how the network would perform, with the level of development the Local Plan Review was expected to address.  The Senior Planner explained that the model tested the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Swale, the 1054 dwellings per annum (dpa), and the 776 dpa which was the housing target in the adopted Local Plan 2017.

The Senior Planner referred to the virtual presentation provided by the consultant in May 2020, and the Member workshop held virtually the previous week on the Transport Strategy, which she explained had covered the importance of the modal shift.  She stated that the main question raised by Members had been, “why was the evidence showing different results to the evidence reported to Panel in 2019”?.  The Senior Planner explained that there were several reasons for this: the car trip rates had been reduced; mitigation measures were included in this model; and there was a different distribution of sites.  The Senior Planner reported that the key findings of the report were: there were no significant show-stopping challenges to overcome in addressing the traffic network; Swale could meet the 776 dpa with a reasonably clear network: and the 1054 dpa with the proposed mitigations and significant modal shift.  A final run of the model would be undertaken when the Panel agreed their preferred option later in the year.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments.

Councillor Alastair Gould stated that the Junction 7 improvements and A249 improvements were vital to the modelling.  The Senior Planner confirmed that they had been included in the runs.

Councillor Eddie Thomas asked where the Housing Infrastructure Fund schemes fitted into the four scenarios outlined on page 26 of the report?  The Senior Planner explained that they had undertaken four runs within the transport model and under the 776 scenario one run included the Brenley Corner junction improvement, the Key Street/A249 and Grovehurst junction improvements and the other did not.  There had been a 1054 do-minimum run which had included the Brenley Corner Junction Improvement and Key Street/A249 and Grovehurst junction improvements, and 1054 scenario which had mitigations to be identified for the trip reduction rates.

Councillor Eddie Thomas asked whether other schemes could be considered if appropriate?  The Senior Planner advised that the Transport Strategy would need to look at schemes to support Members preferred options and they would work with KCC to establish what the appropriate modal shift schemes would be.

Councillor Eddie Thomas referred to the two tables on page 52 to 55 of the report and asked what the differences were between the weighted junction and highest junction?  The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC Highways and Transportation) explained that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 693.

The Planner introduced the report which provided details of the Sequential Test for Swale which had been prepared to demonstrate the flood risk on the sites that could be considered for development, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as part of the Local Plan review.  The Planner stated that the aim of the Sequential Test was to steer new developments to the areas with the lowest probability of flooding.  He reminded Members that a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) had been completed and reported to the Panel in November 2019.

The Planner drew attention to the Sequential Test document which was set-out at Appendix I of the report, and provided the results for each individual site.  The Planner reported that 200 of the 235 sites promoted for development had passed the test. He added that the sites that passed the Sequential Test should be considered first. 

The Chairman invited Members to make comments.

Councillor Eddie Thomas asked whether increased flooding from climate change had been considered as part of the Level 2 SFRA?  The Planner explained that the Level 1 SFRA included data on climate change, however the Sequential Test was just about flood risks as they were currently.

Councillor Benjamin Martin asked at what stage had utility companies been consulted.  The Planner explained that the Sequential Test was set-out in a specific way and once sites had been selected these issues could be addressed by the Level 2 SFRA.

Councillor Benjamin Martin asked how could the climate change work be linked to the SFRA work?  The Planner advised that Members needed to consider the Level 1 SRFA and Sequential Test separately when selecting sites. 

Councillor Angela Harrison raised concern that “exception test” sites might be agreed for development.  This would mean that at the planning application stage Members might have to agree developments on sites that were not suitable.  The Planner explained that the Environment Agency (EA) would be consulted and any issues would need to be resolved before the Local Plan was progressed. 

Councillor Mike Whiting raised concern about several sites on the Isle of Sheppey which were prone to flooding and the impacts this would have on park homes.  He also raised concern about the erosion at Eastchurch and other areas of the Isle of Sheppey.  He stated that it was important to ensure that park homes would not be at-risk from coastal erosion in years to come.

The Planner stated that park homes were classed as a more vulnerable development and the classification table included in Appendix I set-out what flood zones were not acceptable.  He explained that the Sequential Test only considered tidal and fluvial flooding risks.

Councillor Monique Bonney asked when flooding caused by surface water run-off would be considered as this was an issue with new developments, particularly in rural areas?  The Planer advised that included in the tables in Appendix I was information from the Level 1 SFRA which identified the percentage risk for each site from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 694.

The Planning Policy Consultant introduced the report which outlined the stages of preparing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).  The Planning Policy Consultant advised that the IDP would form a key part of the evidence base underpinning the delivery of the Swale Local Plan, and how improvements to existing or new infrastructure could be delivered.  She explained that the outcomes of the transport modelling, Swale Transport Strategy would be considered whilst preparing the IDP. 

The Planning Policy Consultant stated that the key infrastructure issues identified were: highway improvements; GP capacity; and the provision of secondary school places.  Once sites had been identified officers would consult with infrastructure providers to identify mitigation measures and likely costs, timescales and funding sources.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments.

Councillor Ben J Martin asked whether Southern Water could be invited to attend a future meeting of the Local Plan Panel to respond to questions about delivery of mitigation measures.  The Head of Planning confirmed that they would be consulted as a provider but could also be invited to address the Panel. 

Councillor Benjamin Martin queried whether utility companies would be asked how developments would affect their sites and referred to the Abbey Fields development in Faversham.  He stated that he was aware that the sewage network at Faversham Creek was at capacity and if Phase II went ahead, they would not be able to progress their development.  The Planning Policy Consultant confirmed that they would consult providers on what the impacts of developments would be to their sites.  This might require diversions of utility apparatus. 

Councillor Eddie Thomas raised concern in relation to the national grid and asked for clear confirmation that they had capacity to provide the necessary Electric Vehicle charging points.   The Planning Policy Consultant advised that the National Grid had no issues currently, however they would be re-consulted when the sites were known.

Councillor Alastair Gould asked whether the relevant providers would be consulted on whether the necessary capacity to supply water could be provided and spoke about the current level of water stress which was likely to get worse with climate change.  The Planning Policy Consultant explained that they had consulted Southern Water and South East Water about water supply issues and would report their comments to the Panel. 

Councillor Monique Bonney raised concern about high speed broadband which she considered was lacking in certain areas and asked whether it could be classed as infrastructure?  The Planning Policy Consultant stated that it could be classed as infrastructure supporting economic growth and would be included in the IDP. 

Councillor Mike Whiting stated that broadband infrastructure was as important as gas, electric etc. and needed to be part of what the LP sought to deliver.

Recommended:

(1)          That the report be noted.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that officers were currently looking at dates for further workshops to be held in the coming months.  These were to consider the following documents:

·         Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and

·         Housing SPD.

Councillor Benjamin Martin asked whether a Biodiversity and new developments - enhancing wildlife and habitats workshop would be arranged next month as previously requested?  He also asked whether a Borough-wide endangered species survey to form a map of species and habitats to help establish sites that would not harm wildlife and habitats would be produced?

The Planning Policy Manager advised that officers were currently working on a biodiversity baseline study, and stated that biodiversity was integral to the Local Plan.  She explained that a workshop was not currently being considered for this, but it could be included for discussion at the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD workshop.

Councillor Benjamin Martin considered that biodiversity was important and should be considered separately.  The Planning Policy Manager felt that biodiversity was cross-cutting and assured the Member that it was also fundamental to the work of the planning policy team.

Councillor Eddie Thomas requested an update on all the documents being worked on by officers and when they were likely to be considered by the Panel.  The Planning Policy Manager agreed to provide an update at the next meeting. 

Councillor Ben J Martin asked for reports on the following:

·         The National Described Space Standards for adoption in the Local Plan;

·         The pros and cons of the Community Infrastructure Levy; and

·         The Historic Local Landscape plan.

The Planning Policy Manager advised that these were all areas of work currently being prepared as part of the Council’s evidence base and agreed to include these in the update for the next meeting.

Councillor Monique Bonney requested a graph showing the SPDs and bullet points under each outlining what they covered and the timeline of each document.  It was agreed that this would be included in the update.

Councillor Mike Whiting asked to include a report on the comments of both the Environment Agency and Natural England on how they would be managing coastal areas.  The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that work on that was already in-hand.

Resolved:

(1)      That the verbal update be noted.

(2)      That a progress report be considered at the next meeting as minuted above.